Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnCJackson
Perhaps this is why she didn't seek those "opinions." I missed anything about tree-hugging in the article or any opinions related to the subject. I guess I'm not keeping up with the pejoratives. Did "socialist" finally go out of style when conservatives realized the whole pot/kettle aspect of that one?
|
Hi JohnC...
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts rationally, calmly and thoughtfully. The issue I was interested in sharing some ideas on concerns not PERSONAL FEELINGS about affirmative action but 1) the LAW and 2) This woman's actual professional record.
If you managed to actually read any specifics of the case, you'll be as interested in I am in a logical, rational, intellectual understanding of the FACTS of the case not the politically-charged rhetoric that's making alot of noise.
Specifically, what is fact is that
the 2nd District Court of Appeals Judges who were in Dissent of the the decison are actually the ones who petitioned the Court to review the case, not the firemen.
Therefore, in light of this, I want to know what specific OBJECTIVE CRITICISMS are there to question this lady's ability to administer CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Further, this woman has:
a) a moderate record having been appointed by Bush Senior and Clinton
b) impeccable academic credentials
c) According to LexisNexis, the legal database, a reverse decision rate of 1.3%
If you've got this far you'll see I am interested in logical evidence and numbers and not intellectual silliness or jump impressions not grounded in
fact. I respect opinions grounded in fact, so I'm actually curious to know the specific grevances people may have who aren't pleased with this Supreme Court pick.
For instance you said that,
"Obama would never nominate someone great. Neither did Bush or most presidents. And neither would McCain if he had the chance."
I respect your passion about the issue but what people like me are interested in is an
ACTUAL DEFINITION of what makes a nomination "great".
Do you look at a candidate's
academic credentials?
Do you look at her
reverse decision record?
Do you look at her
litigation experience?
It's all quite fine for the ill-/un- informed to say silly things like "she is racist I don't like her" and to hurl childish insults but let's face it. Those people aren't exactly going to take the time to objectively evaluate the facts are they?
Imagine a scientist rendering a conclusion before he or she has even tested whether or not there's evidence of the truth of the hypothesis - this is what I'm referring to...
At any rate, best to not suffer fools and wish them well....
But to get back to my point, I think there are legitimate OBJECTIVE, QUANTITATIVE, RATIONAL, LOGICAL reasons for questioning candidates suitability for a job.
What many of us are hungry for - particularly those who value open-minded, emotionally detached logical and thoughtful discussion - are a balanced understand of the issues/facts/actual numbers outside of the mainstream traditional democrat/republican political spin.
I'm all ears and if you have some links to reasonably credible sources, please send them down so I can have a look!